Helmet, Yes or No?

bigmat

surreyxc wrote:

I decide when to wear one, depends on circumstances. Having just got back from Holland, were I saw the whole spectrum of society riding bikes without helmets or lycra, weaving in and out of mopeds and pedestrians, no dramas. So it all depends.

Lets not forget a lot of the most common serious accidents involve cars. As society we are curtailing peoples personal freedom to accommodate cars. It is akin to any other crime where the victim is blamed and told to curtail there actions rather than those who create the problem. Government could put real pressure on the automotive industry, to limit speed, acceleration, to make the outside of vehicles safer. And in addition they could make real efforts to come up with genuine integrated transport alternatives. The car was useful for getting society to this point but now it does seem to be increasingly problematic than helpful. Governments realise it is a problem but few have the courage to make real, and possibly painful changes. And it is sad they are missing an opportunity to make a change, instead opting for electric cars, how refreshing would it be for a streets to be once again quiet and relaxed, sociable and safe. Over a million killed a year globally, any other killer of this proportion would have governments up in arms for a solution, but because it is good for business it is deemed to be regrettably acceptable and in that sense we are all guilty, as we as a society value convenience too much to make much of a voice against it.

I have to say, I find my car quite helpful. There's no point bashing cars when there is no adequate alternative. The train network is inadequate and overpriced, we are a mobile society and cars are a necessary part of that. It would be nice if people limited their use to when it was really necessary, and then drove in a more considerate manner. Also, designing vehicles to be safer for other road users (pedestrians, cyclists etc) rather than just the occupants would be nice.

Mark Elvin

BigMat wrote:

I have to say, I find my car quite helpful. There's no point bashing cars when there is no adequate alternative. The train network is inadequate and overpriced, we are a mobile society and cars are a necessary part of that. It would be nice if people limited their use to when it was really necessary, and then drove in a more considerate manner. Also, designing vehicles to be safer for other road users (pedestrians, cyclists etc) rather than just the occupants would be nice.

I agree, cars are, for some peolpe, essential.

I drive to work, I live 5mins walk from a station, and work 5mins walk from a station on the same line, however, the cost involved by using the train for work would see me around £150 a month worse off after all expeses are considered.

roger_merriman

Mark Elvin wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I have to say, I find my car quite helpful. There's no point bashing cars when there is no adequate alternative. The train network is inadequate and overpriced, we are a mobile society and cars are a necessary part of that. It would be nice if people limited their use to when it was really necessary, and then drove in a more considerate manner. Also, designing vehicles to be safer for other road users (pedestrians, cyclists etc) rather than just the occupants would be nice.

I agree, cars are, for some peolpe, essential.

I drive to work, I live 5mins walk from a station, and work 5mins walk from a station on the same line, however, the cost involved by using the train for work would see me around £150 a month worse off after all expeses are considered.

when I go to see my folks, one can do it by train but it's horribly expensive, and slow. and requires taxies.

so we take the car as it's cheap and fast.

surreyxc

but that's my point, government really can bring about change, to give genuine options, and cars are useful but honestly how often do people really need to use them. Yes cars have there uses, but at best mine probably gets used once a month . Everyone has personal circumstances.

I am not car bashing, but at the same time most fatalities for cyclist and pedestrians are caused by cars, so it would seem to be a better to tackle the problem than the effects.

shm_uk

Years ago someone dropped a first aid box out of a loft that hit me directly on the head.

At the time I had never worn a cycle helmet so was instantly killed to death.

At some point after this, I started wearing a helmet when cycling.

Since when, I have never been kit on the head by anything.

So that proves that the helmet has stopped me from being dead all the time.

dhope

shm_uk wrote:

Years ago someone dropped a first aid box out of a loft that hit me directly on the head.

At the time I had never worn a cycle helmet so was instantly killed to death.

At some point after this, I started wearing a helmet when cycling.

Since when, I have never been kit on the head by anything.

So that proves that the helmet has stopped me from being dead all the time.

:?
Yes yes, I see the hyperbole and poking fun at those that argue from the particular to the general, but not certain who you were ridiculing.

Surely the pro helmet argument is that, broadly speaking, if you are involved in an accident where you hit your head then a helmet is likely to reduce the chance or severity of injury. Deliberately missing the point is boring.

EKE_38BPM

I've copied this from my post in a similar helmet thread in the wasteland that is known as Commuting General:

"The more cyclists there are, the safer it is for the cyclists, so the less need for a lid.
Australia made wearing lids compulsory, the number of cyclists went down (some people really don't want to mess their hair up) and the number of collisions went up (per distance cycled).

Lots of collisions (I would guess most) between motor vehicles and cyclists happen because of bad observation by motorists. They don't expect to see cyclists so the don't really look for cyclists.
In a place where motorists know there are lots of cyclists around (e.g. Cambridge, Copenhagen or Amsterdam), they observe a bit more because they expect cyclists to be around and actively look for them. As they are looking for cyclists they are more likely to see cyclists and then not collide with a cyclist.

When it comes to cycling, there really is safety in numbers. This is the main reason I'm totally against making helmet wearing compulsory, even though I nearly always wear one."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, MUST NOT POST IN HELMET THREADS!

CiB

What struck me on the One Show piece was the woman arguing for mandatory helmets for U15s; she was hardly the best advert for a law that would probably suppress cycling and in doing so increase the obesity levels in the UK. What's the word I'm scratting for - oh yes: fat bint. Take a look at yourself before you start bossing other people around on subjects that you know nothing about.

rick_chasey

C'mon guys, given it's a legal question, it should be considered from a public health perspective.

johnboy183

yes i wear a helmet cos i feel safer with it on and that is all that matters to me and my family

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

C'mon guys, given it's a legal question, it should be considered from a public health perspective.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The public health argument is simple - compulsary helmets mean less people ride (in the short & medium term at least) than without compulsary helmets, and the public health gains through fitness are bigger than the losses prevented by compulsary helmets.

Never seen any evidence to support that view, just lots of "C'mnon guys, it's obvious that...".
I'd imagine it could just as easily be made the other way around. Also, does fewer obese people outrank fewer head injuries...

rick_chasey

dhope wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

C'mon guys, given it's a legal question, it should be considered from a public health perspective.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The public health argument is simple - compulsary helmets mean less people ride (in the short & medium term at least) than without compulsary helmets, and the public health gains through fitness are bigger than the losses prevented by compulsary helmets.

Never seen any evidence to support that view, just lots of "C'mnon guys, it's obvious that...".
I'd imagine it could just as easily be made the other way around. Also, does fewer obese people outrank fewer head injuries...

It was in an article in procycling by Chris Boardman the last one he wrote for them I beleive - he wrote it off the back of being on the board who decided weather to push for it to be legilsation or not. He came to the conclusion it shouldn't be compulsary, and that was the crux of his argument.

It was based mainly on figures from Australia and other natios who have recently made it compulsary.

Pedant note: It was a while back. I may not be able to remember it precisely

rick_chasey

A more contemporary post on the matter: http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/sutra22584.php

roger_merriman

my take is that cycling does not appear to be dangerous, yes people die and get seriously injured. but that happens to people watching the X factor on tv....

a helmet is hot, sure rolling along at 25mph it's fine but times when you do get hot you (or i do any way) i'm travelling slowly.

so no helmet for road/commute/MTB

surreyxc

Lol look at these fools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

Yes they are on a dedicated path but they could still fall off, their just mental, remember helmets at all time irrespective of the conditions or speed! ha

notsoblue

surreyxc wrote:

Lol look at these fools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

Yes they are on a dedicated path but they could still fall off, their just mental, remember helmets at all time irrespective of the conditions or speed! ha

Shocking. What a negligent government they must have for not enforcing helmet use.

sketchley

I'm against compulsory helmets. That argument seems to be made by car drivers in order to protect a negligent driver from a larger compensation and stops them from taking more care.

I also completely buy the argument that cycling without a helmet is yes risky than not cycling at all because of the health benefits of cycling. Of course the same does not apply to a person that is already active / fit.

What I would like to see is some real evidence a helmet actually reduces risk of serious head injury in event of an accident. I would like to think that a helmet doesn’t increase risk, so it should be.

p.s. I always wear a helmet.

UndercoverElephant

notsoblue wrote:

surreyxc wrote:

Lol look at these fools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

Yes they are on a dedicated path but they could still fall off, their just mental, remember helmets at all time irrespective of the conditions or speed! ha

Shocking. What a negligent government they must have for not enforcing helmet use.

Not to mention the reckless usage of time-lapse photography. Disgraceful.

rjsterry

This is becoming like some sort of zombie thread: you can post anything you like to try and derail it. It'll even disappear for months, and just when you think you can finally turn your back on it, it lurches back to life like some dodgy horror movie.

Night of the Living Thread: It's already dead, so how do you kill it?

surreyxc

it will never die, the fight must continue until they leave us alone

tailwindhome

This thread should be a sticky

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

This is becoming like some sort of zombie thread: you can post anything you like to try and derail it. It'll even disappear for months, and just when you think you can finally turn your back on it, it lurches back to life like some dodgy horror movie.

Night of the Living Thread: It's already dead, so how do you kill it?

This will only end when compulsory helmet used is enforced by the law with FPN. Then, and only then will we be free of the menace of "Helmet Use, Yes No" threads...

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is becoming like some sort of zombie thread: you can post anything you like to try and derail it. It'll even disappear for months, and just when you think you can finally turn your back on it, it lurches back to life like some dodgy horror movie.

Night of the Living Thread: It's already dead, so how do you kill it?

This will only end when compulsory helmet used is enforced by the law with FPN. Then, and only then will we be free of the menace of "Helmet Use, Yes No" threads...

Fat chance. There'll be some sort of civil disobedience campaign headed by WGW & Co.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is becoming like some sort of zombie thread: you can post anything you like to try and derail it. It'll even disappear for months, and just when you think you can finally turn your back on it, it lurches back to life like some dodgy horror movie.

Night of the Living Thread: It's already dead, so how do you kill it?

This will only end when compulsory helmet used is enforced by the law with FPN. Then, and only then will we be free of the menace of "Helmet Use, Yes No" threads...

Fat chance. There'll be some sort of civil disobedience campaign headed by WGW & Co.

Excellent, well then I can put my kevlar body armour and full face helmet (which of course I wear every time I straddle my two wheeled death contraption) to good use while I volunteer to kettle them. Big society and all that.

surreyxc

more helmets and reflective clothing, perhaps we can avoid scenes like these:

http://charikichi.tumblr.com/page/6

turn a frown into a smile

shouldbeinbed

I've got a blue bike, a silver bike & a black bike

Whats your favourite colour?

MonkeyMonster

biondino wrote:

In the last enormous thread about helmets, the evidence seemed to be that:

- At high speeds the helmet will make little/no difference, you'll still be killed if you would have been killed otherwise

- At a small range of highish speeds and certain types of accidents, there is some evidence that rotational brain injury (which results in paralysis/vegetative state rather than death) may be exacerbated by helmet use. The range of accidents where a helmet will make this difference is likely to be very small

- At low speeds helmets will help a great deal in avoiding mostly superficial damage but also more serious injuries.

So a helmet is either good or neutral in a vast majority of potential accidents. Seems pretty much a no-brainer if you'll pardon the pun.

(and yes, I wear mine every time I ride because the thought of having an accident without a helmet, splitting my skull open and lying on the ground in a pool of bood thining "why oh why didn't I wear my helmet" really doesn't bear thinking about)

Another point often seen is "everyone has annecdotal evidence that says they are useful but no real stats" Not wanting to cause a fight - but I know 2 people who are still alive with no symtoms due to a helmet with the evidence (i'd say) 99% conclusive. High speed road desent - 25mph+ and front wheel is lost (can't remember if structural failure or loose gravel) and he crashes head first into one of those wooden electricity poles - helmet disintigrates (literaly) and he was knocked out - that was all bar a few scrapes etc. The other was a car imposed crashed where large chunk of metal ended up embedded in the side of helmet above his temple when his head+helmet smacked down. Now he had a sore neck because the helmet was tilting his head. But he also didn't have a large chunk though part of his head because it got stuck in the helmet and is fine now - given thinness of skull material there its exceedingly likely it would have embedded totally into his skull, he wouldn't have had a sore neck though...

How many people do you know personally who've sufffered far less/survived fbecause they were wearing a helmet and how many have had accidents exacerbated with whiplash etc?

CiB

MonkeyMonster wrote:

A lot of stuff, followed by...
How many people do you know personally who've sufffered far less/survived fbecause they were wearing a helmet and how many have had accidents exacerbated with whiplash etc?

Which is to completely miss the point and overlook what's been consistently argued.

* Mandatory helmet wearing causes a net reduction in cycling, but without a corresponding drop in injuries.

* nobody is arguing against the wearing of helmets; the argument is that a mandatory helmet wearing in every single type of ride is overkill, unnecessary and pushes the onus onto the victim not the perpetrator

* The opposite of compulsion isn't a ban.

And so on. Go and read the thread again.

How many people do I know who have suffered violent cycling accidents? One - me. No helmet, face plant, hurt, got better. I know of only one other person who's had a bad bike crash, when he broke his thumb going over a car bonnet that pulled out of a drive. That's how safe cycling is. 40 odd years of riding a bike and one face plant, one thumb is the best I can muster. Wear a f u c k i n g hat if it makes you feel good, but don't come on here and insist that everyone in all circumstances should wear one all the time just because you happen to like them.

MonkeyMonster

CiB wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

A lot of stuff, followed by...
How many people do you know personally who've sufffered far less/survived fbecause they were wearing a helmet and how many have had accidents exacerbated with whiplash etc?

Which is to completely miss the point and overlook what's been consistently argued.

* Mandatory helmet wearing causes a net reduction in cycling, but without a corresponding drop in injuries.

* nobody is arguing against the wearing of helmets; the argument is that a mandatory helmet wearing in every single type of ride is overkill, unnecessary and pushes the onus onto the victim not the perpetrator

* The opposite of compulsion isn't a ban.

And so on. Go and read the thread again.

How many people do I know who have suffered violent cycling accidents? One - me. No helmet, face plant, hurt, got better. I know of only one other person who's had a bad bike crash, when he broke his thumb going over a car bonnet that pulled out of a drive. That's how safe cycling is. 40 odd years of riding a bike and one face plant, one thumb is the best I can muster. Wear a f u c k i n g hat if it makes you feel good, but don't come on here and insist that everyone in all circumstances should wear one all the time just because you happen to like them.

Thought you might popup but not in this manner. I'm replying to the ops original post. Why or not wear them. That somewhere in the middle of the 26 pages in between 1st page and last it morphed into a mandatory arguement then sorry I didn't read them all [thought we had the mandatory arguement in a different thread tbh]. Wasn't replying to that at all and I've stated before (I think) it should be the choice of the individual so back off (please). I'd have likely posted something to do with the mandatory arguement if I were to be commenting on it.
That you know of so few crash victims is fortunate, that I were you in this regard i'd be a happier person, one of brothers is still recovering from a broken arm after being knocked off couple of months back by a left turning smidsy winker.
There was more but I can't be arsed now. I personally don't understand your viewpoint to not wear one but I won't and can't demand you do nor would I vote to enforce that either.

wgwarburton

Sketchley wrote:

...What I would like to see is some real evidence a helmet actually reduces risk of serious head injury in event of an accident. I would like to think that a helmet doesn’t increase risk, so it should be....

There is none.

Strange, don't you think... How could that be?

Cheers,
W.